Use of monitoring data to support conservation management and policy decisions in Micronesia. Issue 5 (2nd June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Montambault, Jensen Reitz; Wongbusarakum, Supin; Leberer, Trina; Joseph, Eugene; Andrew, Wayne; Castro, Fran; Nevitt, Brooke; Golbuu, Yimnang; Oldiais, Noelle W.; Groves, Craig R.; Kostka, Willy; Houk, Peter
• Is Part Of: Conservation biology. Volume 29:Issue 5(2015)
• Page Start: 1279
• Page End: 1289
• Publication Date: 2015-06-02
• Subjects: Conservation biology -- Periodicals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12542
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0888-8892

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>Adaptive management implies a continuous knowledge‐based decision‐making process in conservation. Yet, the coupling of scientific monitoring and management frameworks remains rare in practice because formal and informal communication pathways are lacking. We examined 4 cases in Micronesia where conservation practitioners are using new knowledge in the form of monitoring data to advance marine conservation. These cases were drawn from projects in Micronesia Challenge jurisdictions that received funding for coupled monitoring‐to‐management frameworks and encompassed all segments of adaptive management. Monitoring in Helen Reef, Republic of Palau, was catalyzed by coral bleaching and revealed evidence of overfishing that led to increased enforcement and outreach. In Nimpal Channel, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), monitoring the recovery of marine food resources after customary restrictions were put in place led to new, more effective enforcement approaches. Monitoring in Laolao Bay, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, was catalyzed by observable sediment loads from poor land‐use practices and resulted in actions that reduced land‐based threats, particularly littering and illegal burning, and revealed additional threats from overfishing. Pohnpei (FSM) began monitoring after observed declines in grouper spawning aggregations. This data led to adjusting marine conservation area boundaries and implementing market‐based size class restrictions. Two themes emerged from these cases. First, in each case monitoring was conducted in a manner relevant to the social and ecological systems and integrated into the decision‐making process. Second, conservation practitioners and scientists in these cases integrated culturally appropriate stakeholder engagement throughout all phases of the adaptive management cycle. More broadly, our study suggests, when describing adaptive management, providing more details on how monitoring and management activities are linked at similar spatial scales and across similar time frames can enhance the application of knowledge.</p> </abstract>